Private dinners in the Greco-Roman world were used to inflate the honor of the patron and frequently displayed social divisions in the arrangement and fare of the meal. Pliny was opposing a common custom when he complained that the host of one banquet and his social equals were given food and wine, while those of lower social status were seated at a seperate table and givven ordinary foor and bad wine.
The Corinthians were, in short, simply following standard custom when they introduced social and other divisions into the meal.
But Paul condemned this "standard custom."
Paul did not permit the Corinthians to organize their festivals like the banquets of Roman aristocrats. He did not allow the rich and powerful to take the head seats at the table. He insisted that the meal of the new city should reflect the civic order of the new city. The meal of the new city manifests the perichoretic unity of the members of the Church in one another, which reflects and participates in the eternal perichoretic koinonia of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Me:
In other words, the Eucharist, the meal of Jesus, is socially subversive in that the Greco-Roman society, and, let's face it, our society, divides people by money, education, family ties. But the gospel of Jesus unites. Those who were prohibited from the table are invited as they find their common bond in their relation to the Triune God rather than how much money they make, school they went to, or...
No comments:
Post a Comment